It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Impossible Math Question?

page: 7
8
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:18 PM

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by ModestThought

due to an error on my part that thread is basically meaningless.

The question still stands:

q = q + 1/2

?

I'm going to ask this out of sheer confusion.

1st If this equation has stumped the most brilliant of mathematical minds then what makes you think that anyone here is going to give you an answer?

2nd If someone on here does give you the answer then how do you then feel justified in claiming that YOU have just solved the equation? when it was clearly the person that gave you the answer that solved it?

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:51 PM
there's no way you can add something and get the same value. that's the whole point of adding .

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:53 PM
This question does remind me of the quintessential question for mankind..

If a man says something while he is totally alone in the wilderness, where his wife cannot possibly hear him, is he still wrong?

There is actually a math question very similar to this one that does have a mathematical solution.

What number, minus 1, equals the square root of itself, plus 1.

I'll save you the grief of solving it, the number is the golden mean ratio 1.619.

1.619 - 1.00 = 0.619.

0.619 squared = 2.619.

2. 619 = 1.00 + 1.619.

Thus the Golden mean ratio (the ratio upon which all of creation is built) is the only number that satisfys this test.

In relation to the question originally asked - infinity is the ONLY value that satisfys the requirement of the original question.

Cheers

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:57 PM

what number plus 1/2 would equal itself ? answer five

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:59 PM
2 = 1+1 , i'll explain half of 2 is 1 plus it's half which is 1 equals the number you started with 2. so what no. can you add half of it to and get the same number: 2.
edit on 27-11-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:00 PM

I fear you may be right..

This is my last word on the subject

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:00 PM
I don't recall whether this was stated before, but what about negative infinity?

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:07 PM

I mentioned infinity a few times before.. I can't even begin to get my mind to comprehend the concept of negative infinity

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:27 PM
All,
Even though my previous post was a bit of a joke...(and didn't get any stars, btw)

I recommend this film to explain the equation no one could solve.
Maybe this is what you are looking for?

Fermat's Last Theorem

A year later, at the point of defeat, he had a revelation. “It was the most important moment in my working life. Nothing I ever do again will be the same.” The very flaw was the key to a strategy he had abandoned years before. In an instant Fermat was proved; a life’s ambition achieved; the greatest puzzle of maths was no more.

Enjoy and 73's,
Tom

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:37 PM
You are saying that the half is simply .5, not half of the number right? I guess i could give it a shot with some theoretical defined values. 1 is 1/2 of 2, 1 +.5 is 1.5, which is still half of 3, theoretically each number is half of another number, and they all have the same value when determined through another number, this equations goes with any real number. 11= .5 of 22, 11+.5 =11.5, which is .5 of 23.

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:37 PM

Ahh - yes negative infinity... its an immense subject actually..(Einstein scholars will recognise it instantly).

Some do recognise 2 different infinities - toa point.

Mathematicians are starting to talk about 2 different infinities, the infinitely large, and the infinitessimally small.

For those of us who are able to disprove Einstein's, non peer reviewed special relaivity theorem e = mc^2, (many don't realise that Albert Einstein got his nobel physics prize for his quantum nature of the photoelectric effect paper, and that his special relativity theory paper was never peer reviewed before being published, and is demonstarably wrong).
the value of infinity is well understood!

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats,
AND/OR
All cats are dogs!
Which premise is false?
With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later. (Google twin paradox to get afull explanation).

In fact infinityis the only value for c that does satisfy Einsteins e=mc^2 theorem!.

Had Einstein substituted his fine structure constant Alpha (from his nobel prize wining paper on quantum nature of the photoelectric effect) for the universal constant C (later erroneously ascribed as the speed of light in a vacuum) in his special relaivity solution calculations, he would have found his long sought grand unification theorem and been able to explain why:-

Why it is that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137. :lightbulb:

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h." The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete. It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

I seem to have got well beyond the original infinity question but with out understanding of Einsteins relativity error it's not possible to understand infinity correctly.

Cheers

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by ianmoone1

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats,
AND/OR
All cats are dogs!
Which premise is false?
With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later. (Google twin paradox to get afull explanation).

I may not know a lot about science but I do know that this has nothing to do with Einstein. This is an example of Inductive Vs deductive reasoning
Are you saying the E=Mc squared relies on Inductive reasoning?

Surely the proof of e=mc2 is this

edit on 27-11-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:58 PM

There is no such number. Infinity is not a number and half added to any real number is greater than the original number. And complex numbers cannot be ordered.

However, if you take a set of elements and disjunct it with any subset, you will get back the original set. This disjunction operation is sometimes represented as an "+".
edit on 28-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:33 AM
∞+1/2=∞

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:40 AM

Infinity is a concept not a number

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:45 AM

www.phys.unsw.edu.au...

Have a good look at the twin paradox explanation above.

The idea that laigh can be traveling at +ve1000m/s (east) and -ve10000m/s (west) AT THE SAME TIME is clearly paradoxical....yet it is precisely this that e = mc^2 relies upon!

www.brojon.org...

You might enjoy this 2 part treatise on where Einstein went wrong.

I'll quote just a short part from it.

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2) All four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,
who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment. He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.

Einsteins e=mc^2 works to a near enough approximation in near earth space.

If you google "solar tea cup analogy" you wll get an explanation most likely for the problms involved in solving Mitchellson Morleys linear (note not angular) light speed experiement and proving or not the existence of a space either.

It appears as tho there was a 3rd possibility never allowed for and that is - that there is a space ether, and that earth drags this space ether along wit itmuch like a blanket and that the ether orbits at the samevelocity as the earths rotation which is why e=mc^2 seems to work in near earth space.

Mitchellson Sagnacs later rotation analogue light speed experiements were not able to dispell the different velocitys of light measured so used the fact that they were so small as to bestatisticlaly insignificant, to sweep them under the carpet.

Nothing could be further from the truth however.

e=mc^2 works well enough to be able to make reasonable approximations in near earth space - thus the nuclear blast you depict.

Cheers

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:27 AM

In regards to your question you have to stick to the basics of math. 0 is recognized as a number since about 625AD so 0+1/2 Equals 1/2

The key is only that 0 is a number meaning no value

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:31 AM

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:31 AM

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:39 AM

more on the speed of light. in the days of old (actually not to far back) Vacuum tubes powered our lives instread of transistors. Factually energy can travel at nearly the speed of light. Transistors are much much slower. If today they built a giand tube computer it would be the fastest in th world. Now for the facts about light speed.
1 we dont know for sure what it is.
2 We have slowed it to a near stop in a lab
3 if under current rules light speed would be infinite mass. If you were going light speed you would be everywhere and every timeline.
4 If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate then after 13.5 billion years it far surpassed its given velocity. We invented the number, do not forget that

top topics

8